811) Arminius, 29.08.2015, 03:20, 03:53, 04:37, 04:51 (3679-3682)

„My idea of a good time is – the biggest problem facing the world today is mental health. If everybody had good mental health then all the other problems would be solved because in order to take care of mechanical and um… practical problems you have to have good mental health in order to attack those problems. If people have motives that are not worth while then those bad motives are always going to creep into their activities then – you see that everyday from the political people work, the people who are in just the position to have their minds functioning right then everything else would fall into line. That’s what I’m after – that’s my dream. Now that’s a dream – that’s probably not going to happen but that’s my dream.“ - Frank Zappa.

Bullshit of a puppy.

Puppy, it is your own and only your own problem when you are not capable of understanding. You are defeated by yourself.

Concerning the name Arminius I have already told you what it stands for (and by the way: you do not know whether it is my real name!).

Arminius wrote:

„Platospuppy wrote:

»Arminius - German warrior who defeated Roman army. Say no more!« **

Arminius stands for FREEDOM. In order to get freedom, to free his country and his people, he had to fight, to be a freedom fighter. That is right. If he had not lived, fighted for freedom, and defeated the Romans (but he has!), then not merely several German tribes (as it was!) but all German tribes, thus almost all of the then Europeans would have become slaves, the further history of the Roman emprie would have been a very much different one and with more slaves than it already had.

So my username stands for FREEDOM.

I am fighting for freedom, yes, and here on ILP this does especially mean: I am fighting for the freedom of thoughts and speech.

I am fighting against enslavement, yes, and here on ILP this does especially mean: I am fighting against enslavement of thoughts and speech.

What does your username stand for?“ ** **

Stop being childish. Or at least: Stop being like a puppy - .... if you can.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Drones and androids are being programmed to:
»Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony«,
and thus will be more fitted than You.

James S. Saint wrote:

»Currently drones are being trained to coordinate impromptu maneuvers with each other, not requiring an operator. They can maneuver around obstacles, reunite, and coordinate attack strategies, all without the aid of an operator. They are merely given a task and turned loose.

At the end of this video, YOU are the little red object. ** **
Reassemble the troops: **
Who/What is watching and judging YOU: **
Programmed to intelligently pacify you: ** **
More than a mere program: **

....« **

Humans, You are NOT the fittest!“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Actually these are closer to what I was looking for wherein the coordination of the swarms is being taught to the swarms: ** **

You are the »potential terrorist« to be controlled by autonomous drones. Why not?“ **

Again: Is there hope?

812) Arminius, 01.09.2015, 01:55, 01:57, 02:20, 16:50, 19:38, 20:55, 21:52 (3683-3689)

Phoneutria wrote:

„I find it that peoples who die out are not the fittest.“ **

Afterwards it is always easy to say said that those who die out are not the fittest, but that does not always prove or disprove the real fitness.

What did, for example, Pol Pot do? He eliminated all intelligent humans in his country, because intelligence was „antisocialistic“, thus not allowed in his „socialistic“ country. Were these humans really „not the fittest“ (in your terms)? Intelligence is a sign of fitness, although not the only one. Pol Pot was one of many politicians who decided against the so-called „natural selection“ by operating their own selection. According to them the people they murdered were not „fit“ in the sense that they were not the „fitted“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And I find that people who live on were not the fittest, merely the fitted.“ **

So the Darwinistic „fitness“ concept is problematic and thus almost useless.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The Neanderthals were just standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.“ **

In many aspects the Neanderthals were fitter than all other species of the genus „homo“, but in spite of that fact the Neanderthatls died out. Yes.

Phoneutria wrote:

„It's a poin it time thing. There can never be »the fittest«, only »the fittest right now«.“ **

So the Darwinistic „fitness“ concept is problematic and thus almost useless.

„Are you“ (**) ... what ...?

These physicists (**) believe that the black holes will bring us the „revolution“ that will finish the rule of the time arrow.

James S. Saint wrote:

„I remember proposing the idea of what they now call »Pangea« back in the sixties and got ridiculed. The Earth really is very »unstable« and being constantly kneaded and mushed around by the effects from the Sun and the Moon. If left long enough, the Earth would become covered completely with water as all mountains and continents gradually crumbled into the oceans - entropy. The inevitable end result of the Earth's orbiting Moon is that the Earth becomes very smooth surfaced and covered with water. There is nothing to counter natural entropy of all complex forms, other than intelligent life itself.“ **

The German geologist, meteorologist, and polar explorer Alfred Wegener was the founder of the theory of the continental drift (1912). At first the people of the international institutes and symposia laughed at him, whereas another German scientist, the father of the nuclear fission (splitting of the atom), Otto Hahn, acknowledged Wegener's theory (cp. „Was lehrt uns die Radioaktivität über die Geschichte der Erde?“, 1926). Decades later the people of the international institutes and symposia accepted Wegener's theory, so that it became the most accepted theory of geology: the plate tectonics.

There are other geotectonic theories, but they are not as well accepted as the theory of the continental drift (plate tectonics). Besides the theory of the continental drift (plate tectonics) there are the theory of contraction (Saussure, Sueß, Stille, a.o.), the theory of expansion (von Richthofen, Hilgenberg, a.o.), the theory of undercurrent and swallowing (Ampferer, Schwinner, Cloos, a.o.), the theory of stream-stretching (Gutenberg, Wiechert, a.o.), the theory of oscillation (Haarmann a.o.), the theory of thermal cycles (Joly a.o.), the theory of undation (Stille a.o.) and some other theories.

The main fundamentals of thoughts in geology are (in alphabetical order): actualism, cataclysm (catastrophism), exceptionalism, theory of cycles. So the geotectonic theories are based on one or more than one of this fundamentals of thoughts. And of course: they all should be and are consistent with the fundamental knowledge of physics (cosmology / astronomy) and chemistry, because physics and chemistry are the two fundamental science branches of geology.

Phoneutria wrote:

„There's no »proving the real fitness«. That's nonsense.“ **

That is a false quotation. You should quote my text correctly, Phoneutria. I said (see above): „... that does not always prove or disorove the real fitness.“ So I do not claim or demand a prove or a disprove, the reverse is the case: the Darwinists and nobody else have to prove or disprove, if they want their theory to be accepted. If the Darwinists want their theory to be accepted, then it is up to them to prove or to disprove. And if it is not possible to prove or to disprove a theory, then this theory has nothing to do with science.

Phoneutria wrote:

„There is no single fitness in present time that is above all others. There are more unicelular organisms living on your body than there are humans on the entire planet, and they don't even have a nervous system, let alone a brain.“ **

Who said that there was a „fitness in present time that is above all others“?

Phoneutria wrote:

„Evolution doesn't stop at the fittest. It proceeds to expect the fittesttesttest.
There's fit. Every living species on Earth right now is fit, thus they are alive. All of them are a success. If they were unfit they would be dead. Among the fit, all are doing everything in their power to perpetuate everything about themselves. The ones who are better fit will be the ones imparting an effect on the future of the species. What determines what a »better fit« means is perpetuation itself. Thus knowledge of »the fittest« can only happen after the fact.“ **

The knowledge of „the fittest“ can almost always also not happen after the fact. You contradict yourself. First you say „there's no »proving the real fitness«“, then you say „knowledge of 'the fittest' can only happen after the fact“.

I understand „proving“ and „knowledge“ in a scientific sense here.

Nobody really knows „the fittest“. There are too many parameters.

Phoneutria wrote:

„My terms don't matter one single bit. Neither do yours. We follow to the obvious conclusion that intelligence is the greatest indicator of fitness, but that is an antropocentric view.“ **

No. Maybe that you „follow to the obvious conclusion that intelligence is the greatest indicator of fitness“. But I do not:

I wrote:

„Intelligence is a sign of fitness, although not the only one.“ ** **

I said: „not the only one“. Did you not notice that?

If there is fitness, then there must be indicators of fitness, otherwise the concept of „fitness“ can never be taken seriously.

The excuse of the Darwinists is, for example, that „fitness is more than fitness“. So they do not want to be taken seriously.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Intelligence has allowed us to colonize every terrain on the planet, and subdue all other creatures and the Earth itself, terraforming it to conform to our whims, but it would only take a well placed space rock of adequate size to wipe most of that away in a second and the rest of it in a few months. And guess what, cockroaches will still be roaming around, bitches.“ **

Yeah. Do you consider cockroaches as „the fittest“?

Phoneutria wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Phoneutria wrote:

›It's a poin it time thing. There can never be 'the fittest', only 'the fittest right now'.‹ **

So the Darwinistic ›fitness‹ concept is problematic and thus almost useless.« ** **

Almost useles ...., hm. What uses do you think it should have?
And again, what's problematic about it? I still don't get your objection. It seems to me that what you are arguing is that sometimes we eliminate what we think might be the best among us. But then again, Arminius, we don't get to decide what atributes make someone the fittest. All we can do is strive to be fit.“ **

Again: Nobody really knows „the fittest“, Phoneutria.

One can only say after some facts that this or that living being „fitted“. There are some indicators of fitness, as I already said, but in some cases (for example in the case of the human „social selection“) this indicators can also be used as if they were indicadors of unfitness.

The Darwinistic „fitness“ concept is problematic, the Darwinistic „selection principle“ is partly false, and that includes the possibility of being totally false but also being partly right. I would like to save the right parts of that theory, because I think that it is going to be completely eliminated, if nobody will have eliminated its false parts in order to save its right parts.

The Italian Book.

Last week I bought a book in Italy. The cashier got hundred Euros and gave me twice as much and five cents more back than my entitlement was. Obviously the cashier had confused the amount in euros with the amount in cents.

How expensive was the book?

In philosophy as a thinking system there are two general ways of thinking: (1) a restricted way of thinking, (2) an elaborated way of thinking. Both are philosophy - the former in a primitive way and the latter in a progressed way. If someone uses the former one, then this does not necessarily mean that this someone is stupid but probably not much interested in philosophy. So Frank Zappa, who was intelligent, used his philosophical statements not in the sense of the elaborated way of thinking. When a man like Zappa says that „the biggest problem facing the world today is mental health“, then this statement represents his way of thinking, because he uses the restricted way of thinking. That is typical for one who is more interested in science than in philosophy, although both have much to do with each other. That one does not want to be a great philosopher but probably knows that it is almost impossible to not think and that thinking becomes philosophy, if it is systematically exercised.

813) Arminius, 02.09.2015, 14:04, 20:23, 21:03, 21:12, 21:12, 21:30 (3690-3695)

„Nine Eleven“ sounds almost like „Two Twenty-Seven“.

Topic: Geology.

Geology is an earth science comprising the study of solid Earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the processes by which they change.

What do you think about geology as science, about its history, its methods, its dating methods, the geological structures, the geological time, the geological development, the geological history of the Earth?

The geological history of Earth follows the major events in Earth's past based on the geologic time scale, a system of chronological measurement based on the study of the planet's rock layers (stratigraphy).

The geological time scale is based on fossil evidence in Earth’s rocks and the age of the rocks.

What do you think about the development of the Earth's crust?

Do you think that it moves or not, and, if yes, how and why?

Wegener's theory of the continental drift (plate tectonics) is the currently valid theory.

The tectonic plates of the Earth:

Topic: Riddles.

You may post your riddles in this thread.

Here is one: A bridge between Germany and Switzerland has two parts: a German and a Swiss part - duh. There is a difference between them in height, namely: 54 cm. Why?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Did you mean the amount in »cents« or in »dollars«?“ **

As I said: the amount in cents (euro cents - of course).

Phoneutria wrote:

„The Italian Book:

94.80?“ **

That is false.

814) Arminius, 03.09.2015, 01:12, 02:43, 03:16, 04:33, 01:00, 01:00, 01:00, 01:00, 01:00, 01:00 (3696-3698)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The Italian Book.

Last week I bought a book in Italy. The cashier got hundred Euros and gave me twice as much and five cents more back than my entitlement was. Obviously the cashier had confused the amount in euros with the amount in cents.

How expensive was the book?« ** **

I have to convert it to dollars in order to make cents of it ....

Actually, I must be misunderstanding you in some way.

You seem to be saying that you received twice the proper change, x, plus an extra 5 cents. That would be:
received = 2x + .05.

But then you say that the cashier confused euros with cents. That would mean that what was received was 100 times what was proper:
2x + .05 = 100x.

And that yields some fraction of a cent as the proper change. So I don't get what you meant to say.“ **

The cashier got hundred euros (for you: dollars) and gave me twice as much (back as my entitlement was) and five cents more back than my entitlement was. Obviously the cashier had confused the amount in euros (for you: dollars) with the amount in cents (of the change).

Do you mean what you linguistically described, or what you lingusitically and mathematically described, or what you mathematically described?

Shall I tell more?

James S. Saint wrote:

„The Earth is constantly being kneaded by the orbiting presence of the Moon and the Sun. The Moon's orbits gives rise to lunar cycles of water and Earth tides. And compounding that stress is the Earth spinning relative to the Sun, adding a different frequency of lesser tiding.

Wikipedia wrote:

»Earth tide or body tide is the displacement of the solid Earth's surface caused by the gravity of the Moon and Sun. Its main component has meter-level amplitude at periods of about 12 hours and longer. The largest body tide constituents are semi-diurnal, but there are also significant diurnal, semi-annual, and fortnightly contributions. Though the gravitational forcing causing earth tides and ocean tides is the same, the responses are quite different.«

All of that has a very slow but extremely powerful kneading effect that heats the core of the Earth as well as shifting the more solid materials. The eventual end result, if given enough time, would be that the Earth would become very smooth on the surface and covered entirely by water.“ **

The kneading effect is important, yes, but the radioactivity in the inner core of the Earth is much more important, the radioactivity in the inner core of the Earth is much more important, at least when it comes to cause convection currents in the mantle of the Earth and thus the continental drift (plate tectonics).

James S. Saint wrote:

„I don't know which of your options that fits into (as my usual).“ **

Remember this:

Arminius wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»I remember proposing the idea of what they now call ›Pangea‹ back in the sixties and got ridiculed. The Earth really is very »unstable« and being constantly kneaded and mushed around by the effects from the Sun and the Moon. If left long enough, the Earth would become covered completely with water as all mountains and continents gradually crumbled into the oceans - entropy. The inevitable end result of the Earth's orbiting Moon is that the Earth becomes very smooth surfaced and covered with water. There is nothing to counter natural entropy of all complex forms, other than intelligent life itself.« **

The German geologist, meteorologist, and polar explorer Alfred Wegener was the founder of the theory of the continental drift (1912). At first the people of the international institutes and symposia laughed at him, whereas another German scientist, the father of the nuclear fission (splitting of the atom), Otto Hahn, acknowledged Wegener's theory (cp. »Was lehrt uns die Radioaktivität über die Geschichte der Erde?«, 1926). Decades later the people of the international institutes and symposia accepted Wegener's theory, so that it became the most accepted theory of geology: the plate tectonics.

There are other geotectonic theories, but they are not as well accepted as the theory of the continental drift (plate tectonics). Besides the theory of the continental drift (plate tectonics) there are the theory of contraction (Saussure, Sueß, Stille, a.o.), the theory of expansion (von Richthofen, Hilgenberg, a.o.), the theory of undercurrent and swallowing (Ampferer, Schwinner, Cloos, a.o.), the theory of stream-stretching (Gutenberg, Wiechert, a.o.), the theory of oscillation (Haarmann a.o.), the theory of thermal cycles (Joly a.o.), the theory of undation (Stille a.o.) and some other theories.

The main fundamentals of thoughts in geology are (in alphabetical order): actualism, cataclysm (catastrophism), exceptionalism, theory of cycles. So the geotectonic theories are based on one or more than one of this fundamentals of thoughts. And of course: they all should be and are consistent with the fundamental knowledge of physics (cosmology / astronomy) and chemistry, because physics and chemistry are the two fundamental science branches of geology“. ** **

The following picture shows the bridge across the Álfagjá rift valley in southwest Iceland, that is part of the boundary between the Eurasian and North American continental tectonic plates.

Alfred L. Wegener, the father of the continental drift (plate tectonics) theory:

James S. Saint wrote:

„Nah .... I'll just accept that I don't get what you are saying.“ **

I estimate that the probability that your problem with my task is no pure text comprehension problem is about 90%.

A linguistical hint:

According to the text the cashier did not confuse one thing with itself.

A linguistical-mathematical hint:

If the cashier confuses two things, then they have to be considered as two „things“ in a mathematical sense too.

A mathematical hint:

There is merely one unknown in your equations.

815) Arminius, 04.09.2015, 00:42, 04:08, 15:17, 19:00 (3700-3703)

Phoneutria wrote:

„Entitlement means my change?“ **

It means not your change but my change.

Entitlements means my change, thus the money I would have got back from her (it was a woman), if she had not miscounted it, and „miscounted“ means in this case: confused euro with cent.

Phoneutria wrote:

„I think I got it. Pardon if your hits or james answers already say this is false. I haven't opened any tabs.“ **

(1) The information in the first tab (with the linguistical hint) is not very much more than in the original text, because the main problem with the task in it is mostly not a language (text understanding, translation and so on) problem. So the problem James and you seem to have with my task is probably (I estimated a probability of 90%) no language problem. (2) The information in the second tab (with the linguistical-mathematical hint) is already a key, because the main problem with the said task is the conversion / transformation from a linguistic text into a mathematic „text“ (equations and so on). (3) And the information in the third tab (with the mathematical hint) contains already a reference to the first mathematic step in order to attain the whole solution of the task.

Phoneutria wrote:

„If book dude cofused the cent amount with the euro amount, that means that the amount of euros he was supposed to get back was 5.
If he was supposed to get 5 and got twice as much, then he got 10euros.“ **

No. Let me say: If you mean it as your own example, then you are right - of course -, but my story is more complicated than that example. So you are on the wrong way. Please read my text one more time.

Phoneutria wrote:

„He was supposed to get 5 euros, 10cents, but got 10euros, 5 cents.“ **

No. Let me say: If you mean it as your own example, then you are right - of course -, but if you referred it to my story, then it would be false. Again: My example is more complicated than your example. So you are on the wrong way. Please read my text one more time.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Therefore the book cost 94 euros, 90 cents.“ **

No. Let me say: According to your example, but not according to my example. So you are on the wrong way. Please read my text one more time.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Also, no idea why I said 94.80 before. Bot enough coffee i think.“ **

If that was right, then coffee would help, because in that example you have at least considered the 5 cents.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Wait that's wrong.“ **

Yes. That is wrong.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Not twice as much plus .5
Hold on. He gave me back twice as much total, or twice as many euros?“ **

Again: The „he“ was a woman, and she gave me (not you) twice as much (back as my entitlement [for you: change] was) and five cents more back than my entitlement was. .... Comprende?

Good luck!

Phoneutria wrote:

„Theories that can be proved are no longer theories, they become laws.“ **

No, Phoneutria. You are wrong. Laws are like the instructional parts of any dogmatism and made for dictatorships. I do not care whether some people want to name them „laws“, because (at least to me) laws are superordinated rules and should not have anything to do with science, otherwise science would become a religion (and - unfortunately - it has already partly become a religion).

Phoneutria wrote:

„We call it theory of evolution, and not law of evolution ....“ **

But I know some people who want it to be a law and why they want it to be a law.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Anyway, what, exactly, is up to Darwinists to prove?“ **

The accent lies on the term „is up to Darwinists“ not on the word „what“. If I want to convince you, then it is up to me to prove my statements or to disprove their negation.

Concerning your „what“ I already said several times: (1) „selection“, (2) „fitness“.

During the period of Realism and Naturalism (radical realism) almost everything was related to nature, based on nature - it was a reaction to the previous period: Idealism and Romantic.

Phoneutria wrote:

„You can say that we are the fittest of the Homo genus because we are the only ones left. This is after the fact because all the other ones are dead.“ **

One can say it, but that does not necessarily prove „our“ fitness or disprove „our“ unfitness. So it is nonsensical to say it as if it were something like the truth or a law (see above). If you have won a game, then that fact does not necessarily prove your fitness or disprove your unfitness. You may have had much luck or/and help.

Phoneutria wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»If there is fitness, then there must be indicators of fitness, otherwise the concept of ›fitness‹ can never be taken seriously.« ** **

Survival.“ **

Survival is no sufficient indicator of fitness.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Which ones?“ **

The so-called „fittest“!

Phoneutria wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»There are some indicators of fitness, as I already said, but in some cases (for example in the case of the human "social selection") this indicators can also be used as if they were indicadors of unfitness.« ** **

Like what? Can you give me an example?:)

I have already given several examples. This time I am not going to quote again. .... Sorry.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The Darwinistic »fitness« concept is problematic, the Darwinistic »selection principle« is partly false, and that includes the possibility of being totally false but also being partly right. I would like to save the right parts of that theory, because I think that it is going to be completely eliminated, if nobody will have eliminated its false parts in order to save its right parts.« ** **

I still don't understand your objection.

Let me ask you: Is your term „survival as in perpetuation“ an objection?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius, I think we need examples of the kind of exchanges and mis-exchanges that you are trying to say are taking place in that puzzle. For example, if you were supposed to get 50.25 euros back but she made that mistake of confusing euros with cents, how much would you have gotten back?“ **

As I said several times: she made that mistake of confusing euros (for you: dollars) with cents. So now I respond to your example you just made: if I was supposed to get 50.25 euros back but she made the mistake of confusing euros with cents, then I would have gotten back 25.50 euros. Of course! Duh! 25 euros instead of 25 cents and 50 cents instead of 50 euros. Duh!

James S. Saint wrote:

„I guess the USA's national religion, »Human Secularism« is classified under »Other Religions« in those charts. I have to wonder why they speculate that it will grow so slowly.“ **

The „Other Religions“ of the United States will increase from 0.6% (2010) to 1.5% (2050):

The Jews (1.8% => 1.4%) and the Christians (78.3% => 66.4%) are the two religious communities that will decrease, whereas all other religious communities will increase. The Jews will decrease by 22.22% and the Christians by 15.20%, whereas the Buddhists will increase by 16.67%, the so-called „Unaffiliated“ by 56.10%, the Hindus by 100%, the Muslims by 133.33%, the so-called „Folk Religions“ by 150%, and the so-called „Other Religions“ by 150%. So the so-called „Folk Religions“ (0.2% => 0.5%) and the so-called „Other Religions“ (0.6% => 1.5%) will relatively increase most (60%), whereas the so-called „Unaffiliated“ (16.4% => 25.6%) will absolutely increase most (9.2%), the Buddhists (1.2% => 1.4%) will absolutely increase least (0.2%); and the Christians (78.3% => 66.4%) will absolutely decrease most (11.9%), whereas the Jews (1.8% => 1.4%) will absolutely decrease least (0.4%).

Christians and Jews: 80.1% (2010) => 67.8% (2050); decrease (in percent points: 12.3) by 15.36%.
All other religious communities: 19.9% (2010) => 32.3% (2050); increase (in percent points: 12.4) by 62.31%.

In 2010 the numerical relationship was about 4:1.
In 2050 the numerical relationship will be about 2:1.

816) Arminius, 05.09.2015, 02:12, 02:17, 03:02, 19:34, 23:22 (3704-3708)

There are some analogyies between the time reckoning of Christianity and the time reckoning of the big bang theory:

Both times start at zero.
The future of both times is infinite.
The birth of Jesus Christ and the big bang are „singularities“.

Copied post in another thread.

The theory of thermal cycles is a compromise between Earth-expansion and Earth-contraction. According to the theory of thermal cycles heat flow from radioactive decay inside Earth surpasses the cooling of Earth's exterior. A hypothesis is proposed in which Earth loses its heat by cyclic periods of expansion; expansion led to cracks and joints in Earth's interior, that could fill with magma. This was followed by a cooling phase, where the magma would freeze and become solid rock again, causing Earth to shrink.

Source: Rudolf Hohl, „Geotektonische Hypothesen“, in: „Die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Erde. Brockhaus Nachschlagewerk Geologie mit einem ABC der Geologie“ (4. ed.), Bd. 1; 279–321.

Economic aspects correlate with demographic aspects.

Do you know how trustworthy the people of the so-called „PEW Research Center“ (**) and their statements are? They predict that the fertility rates and the age distribution of the religious groups (incl. the global average) will develop as follows:

Mulims: 3.1 (2010) => 2.3 (2050), thus –0.8;
Christians: 2.7 (2010) => 2.3 (2050), thus –0.3;
Global average: 2.5 (2010) => 2.1 (2050), thus –0.4;
Hindus: 2.4 (2010) => 1.8 (2050), thus –0.6;
Jews: 2.3 (2010) => 2.1 (2050), thus –0.2;
Folk Religions: 1.8 (2010) => 2.0 (2050), thus +0.2;
Unaffiliated: 1,7 (2010) => 1.9 (2050), thus +0.2;
Other Religions: 1,7 (2010) => 1.8 (2050), thus +0.1;
Buddhists: 1,6 (2010) => 1.7 (2050), thus +0.1.

Source: **

„The largest net movement is expected to be out of Christianity (66 million people), including the net departure of twice as many men (44 million) as women (22 million). Similarly, net gains among the unaffiliated (61 million) are projected to be more than twice as large for men (43 million) as for women (19 million). Muslims and followers of folk religions and other religions are expected to experience modest gains due to religious switching. Jews and Buddhists are expected to experience modest net losses through religious switching.“ **

Source: **

„Unaffiliated“.

„During the next few decades, the number of religiously unaffiliated people around the world is projected to grow modestly, rising from about 1.1 billion in 2010 to a peak of more than 1.2 billion in 2040 and then dropping back slightly.42 Over the same 40-year period, however, the overall global population is expected to increase at a much faster pace. As a result, the percentage of the world’s population that is unaffiliated is expected to drop, from 16% of the world’s total population in 2010 to 13% in 2050.“ **

Change in the 10 countries with the largest unaffiliated populations.

„Projected Population Change in Countries With Largest Unaffiliated Populations in 2010All 10 countries on this list are expected to see their overall populations decline as a share of the world’s population. Collectively, these countries held 33% of the world’s population in 2010. By 2050, their share of the global population is expected to decline to 25%. China alone is expected to shift from having nearly 20% of the world’s population in 2010 to 14% in 2050.

In six of these countries (Japan, the United States, Vietnam, Germany, France and the United Kingdom), the share of the population that is unaffiliated is expected to increase in the coming decades. But the potential growth of the unaffiliated is constrained by the fact that these are all countries with overall populations that are shrinking as a share of the world’s people.

The religiously unaffiliated are heavily concentrated in relatively few countries. As of 2010, about 86% lived in the 10 countries with the largest unaffiliated populations. Consequently, the demographic trajectory of these countries will help shape the projected size of the global unaffiliated population in the decades to come.

In 2010, more than six-in-ten (62%) of the world’s religiously unaffiliated people lived in China. The next largest religiously unaffiliated populations were in Japan (6% of the global total), the United States (5%), Vietnam (2%) and Russia (2%).

In 2050, China is expected to remain home to a majority (54%) of the world’s unaffiliated population. The United States is expected to have the world’s second-largest unaffiliated population (8%), surpassing Japan (6%).“ **

Age Structure and religious switching.

„Age Distribution, 2010Globally, the religiously unaffiliated population was older (median age of 34) than the overall population (median age of 28) as of 2010. In Asia and the Pacific, where most of the unaffiliated live, the median age of the unaffiliated (35) was six years higher than the regional median (29). While sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the youngest median age of religiously unaffiliated people (20), the region’s overall median age is even younger (18).

Age Distribution of Unaffiliated by Region, 2010In other regions, the unaffiliated tend to be younger than the general population. In North America, the median age of the unaffiliated (30) is seven years younger than the regional median (37). In Europe, the median age of the unaffiliated (37) is three years below the overall median (40). And in Latin America and the Caribbean, the median age of the unaffiliated (26) is one year younger than the regional median (27).“ **

Source: **

817) Arminius, 06.09.2015, 01:14, 19:03, 20:57, 23:28 (3709-3712)

The people of the so-called „PEW Research Center“ (**) do not stop their projections at the year 2050:

„Beyond the Year 2050.

Long-Term Projections of Christian and Muslim Shares of World’s PopulationThis report describes how the global religious landscape would change if current demographic trends continue. With each passing year, however, there is a chance that unforeseen events – war, famine, disease, technological innovation, political upheaval, etc. – will alter the size of one religious group or another. Owing to the difficulty of peering more than a few decades into the future, the projections stop at 2050.

Readers may wonder, though, what would happen to the population trajectories highlighted in this report if they were projected into the second half of this century. Given the rapid projected increase from 2010 to 2050 in the Muslim share of the world’s population, would Muslims eventually outnumber Christians? And, if so, when?

The answer depends on continuation of the trends described in Chapter 1. If the main projection model is extended beyond 2050, the Muslim share of the world’s population would equal the Christian share, at roughly 32% each, around 2070. After that, the number of Muslims would exceed the number of Christians, but both religious groups would grow, roughly in tandem, as shown in the graph above. By the year 2100, about 1% more of the world’s population would be Muslim (35%) than Christian (34%).

The projected growth of Muslims and Christians would be driven largely by the continued expansion of Africa’s population. Due to the heavy concentration of Christians and Muslims in this high-fertility region, both groups would increase as a percentage of the global population. Combined, the world’s two largest religious groups would make up more than two-thirds of the global population in 2100 (69%), up from 61% in 2050 and 55% in 2010.

It bears repeating, however, that many factors could alter these trajectories. For example, if a large share of China’s population were to switch to Christianity (as discussed in this sidebar), that shift alone could bolster Christianity’s current position as the world’s most populous religion. Or if disaffiliation were to become common in countries with large Muslim populations – as it is now in some countries with large Christian populations – that trend could slow or reverse the increase in Muslim numbers.“ **

3710

The theory of the expansion is mainly based on thoughts of Ferdinand von Richthofen (1833-1905) explainig the tectonic phenomena of the earth's crust by an extension of parts of the Earth due to the inner warming of the earth. The first widespread, comprehensive work on the expansion of the earth was a book with the title „Vom wachsenden Erdball“ by Ott Christoph Hilgenberg (1896-1976), published in 1933.

In the following videos the German Prof. Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl explains what neutrionos have to do with the expansion of the Earth: ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„I don't think there is any way to justify the thought of the Earth expanding to that extreme. Even with new extreme heat at the core, the amount of internal gas produced by that heat would not cause the Earth to expand even close to the degree required to separate the continents as far apart as they are.

The implication of the purely expansion theory is that the Earth has become very largely hollow, filled with merely hot gases. I haven't been down there, but I seriously doubt there is as much gas space within the Earth as solid space.“ **

According to Meyl the weight in the inner core of the Earth is zero; so the inner core of the Earth is like the outer space. Meyl says that the Earth is growing because the inner core of the Earth is collecting neutrinos, and „a neutrino is oscillating between the size and the property of an electron and a positron“; that means: if it is always oscillating that one time it is positively charged and the next time it is negatively charged; in average the charge is zero, but only the average is zero; the effective value is not zero; but what can be measured only is the average, not the oscillations; „and this is why they say »the charge of a neutrino is zero«, but this is wrong“ (Konstantin Meyl **).

I quoted Meyl, and Meyl is not a clown. (Beware! The devil wears the mask of a clown.)

James S. Saint wrote:

„First, the possible charge of a neutrino is irrelevant.“ **

It is not irrelevant. And it is especially not irrelevant when it comes to understand why some of them interact more than others of them.

James S. Saint wrote:

„A neutrino can acquire a charge and thus become very close to being an electron or a positron and lose it again.“ **

This is no serious argument against Meyl's argument, because Meyl said nearly the same.

James S. Saint wrote:

„It CAN oscillate to a small degree ....“ **

So it can osillate - as Meyl said.

James S. Saint wrote:

„But that isn't what defines its nature nor is that feature required of it.“ **

Oscillating is a part of its nature and can be required.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Maintaining absolute charge neutrality is impossible thus everything is always at least a very tiny bit more of one charge than the other.“ **

I know that RM:AO does not allow absolute charge neutrality. And that does not make Meyl's theory false, because Meyl says that the neutrino can be both positively and negatively charged.

James S. Saint wrote:

„If the body is not a particle made of such a charge, the body can change its bias, although if the mass is large enough, a neutron, such a change would be devastating to the body, destroying it (the Catholic Church becoming Judist).

But I don't see how that has anything significant to do with the Earth's Expansion. Yes, the Earth absorbs neutrinos being emitted by the Sun, along with all of the other forms of radiation. It isn't acquiring so much from the Sun such as to become a big gas filled ball

The fact that at the center of a mass, the gravitational direction (the weight) would be zero is also irrelevant. The mass isn't zero merely because the migration/gravitational direction is zero. Just because someone is pulling at you from the right and equally from the left, doesn't mean that you are massless.“ **

It is not irrelevant whether the weight in a center of a mass is zero or not, because, for example, where weightlessness is there are conditions like in the outer space.

818) Arminius, 07.09.2015, 00:00, 00:00, 03:27 (3713-3715)

James S. Saint wrote:

„I don't see the relevance of any of it. And it isn't an issue of RM:AO.“ **

But you are saying this (for example):

James S. Saint wrote:

„In Reality, there is no limit to smallness. And no absolute zero.“ **

Right?

If the theory of thermal cycles as a compromise between Earth-expansion and Earth-contraction is not false, then the Earth is something like a „geological heart“.

The title of the said text of the PEW Research Center is: „The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050“ (**). Its subtitle is: „Why Muslims Are Rising Fastest and the Unaffiliated Are Shrinking as a Share of the World’s Population“ (**). If until 2050 the Muslims will rise fastest and the Unaffiliated shrink as a share of the world population, then we will probably not get a syncretistic religion before 2050 but war before 2050, because additionally the Christians as a share of the world population will neither rise nor shrink (2010: 31.4% ; 2050: 31.4%), the Jews as a share of the world population will neither rise nor shrink (2010: 0.2% ; 2050: 0.2%), the Hindus as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 15.0% ; 2050: 14.9%), the Other Religions as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 0.8% ; 2050: 0.7%), the Folk Religions as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 5.9% ; 2050: 4.8%), the Buddhists as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 7.1%; 2050: 5.2%), and - as I already said - the Unaffiliated as a share of the world population will shrink (2010: 16.4% ; 2050: 13.2%). So merely the Muslims will rise both absolutely (2010: 1.6 billions; 2050: 2.76 billions) and relatively, thus as a share of the world population (2010: 23.2; 2050: 29.7). That will not necessarily but probably lead to war, namely to more war than we already have.

819) Arminius, 08.09.2015, 01:25, 01:30, 01:31, 01:32, 03:49, 04:23, 06:06, 15:54, 16:11, 16:24, 18:55, 22:34 (3716-3727)

Most of the global population growth comes from the least developed countries:

I want to give you some links, because they may be interesting for this thread too: ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Kant's transcendental idealism / transcendental philosophy is to be understood as a methodological reflection on the cognitive capacity of rational beings and as a response to the dispute between empiricism and rationalism.

Empiricists are of the opinion that only the sensual perception delivers knowledge, cognition; without this the mind is a blank sheet of paper, a tabula rasa. The rationalists - initially Kant himself was also a rationalist - assume that only the mind is capable of delivering deception-free knowledge, cognition. In his „Kritik der reinen Vernunft“ („Critique of Pure Reason“) Kant objected both empirists and rationalists, although his solution was: „both ... and ...“, because knowledge (cognition) needs both the empirical way and the rational way.

„Gedanken ohne Inhalt sind leer, Anschauungen ohne Begriffe sind blind.“ (Immanuel Kant).

It is crucial for the Kantian epistemology that one does not directly perceive the reality of objects but forms the appearances of objects in the consciousness. Real is the appearance (phenomenon), while the world and their individual objects remain unknowable as a „Ding an sich“ („thing as such“ or „thing in itself“, „noumenon“). The „Ding an sich“ is unknowable.

According to Kant „transcendental“ refers to the knowledge (cognition) of the conditions of the knowledge (cognition) itself, which is prior to all experience.

So there is both a „both ... and ...“ and a „versus“.

If it comes to the human possibility of knowledge (cognition), then knowledge (cognition) needs both the rational way and the empirical way; but if it comes to the „Ding an sich“, then knowledge (cognition) is not possible.

Kriswest wrote:

„What if humans agree to seperate and peacefully go down seperate paths becoming truly different breeds?“ **

Kriswest wrote:

„Why must humans be the same to have peace?“ **

Because no real ruler wants then to have peace. Humans can never be the same, so the real rulers and their functionaries are always saying „humans must be the same to have peace“, because the real rulers know that that is impossible. It has always to do with the control of the 99%.

Is that riddle too difficult to solve?

This hint may help:

Germany and Switzerland have a different height reference. Germany's height system is referred to the water level of the North Sea, whereas the Switzerland's height system is referred to the water level of the Mediterranean Sea. Of course: the responsible planners of the said bridge knew this fact and took it into account: a height difference of 27 cm. But then the Swiss made a msitake. Which mistake did the Swiss make?

James S. Saint wrote:

„They helped build the bridge.“ **

That is a good joke.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Silly swiss compensated for the difference in the wrong direction, I guess.“ **

Yes.

Phoneutria wrote:

„I hope you make fun of them for that.“ **

No. I did not make fun of them for that. It is a true story.

The name of the city where this happened (2003-2004) is Laufenburg, and this city has two parts: a German (**) and a Swiss (**) part.

I did not find any English text about that said bridge with the Swiss construction fault. Those who can understand German may use the following link: **.

The following photos were taken before the Swiss construction fault of 2003-2004 (see above), namely in 1864 (the first one) and in 2000 (the second one):

This photo was taken in 1864. You can also see a part of the oldest existing bridge of Laufenburg. This bridge was build in the Middle Ages.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This photo was taken in 2000.

Nietzsche was not a Slav.

And this thread should not be derailed. This thread is about the Great Slav Musician Frank Zappa and his philosophy. So, please, stick to the topic.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Another effort to clarify/verify something on that puzzle:

If the proper entitlement is x,
e is the received euros, and
c is the received cents, then
2x + 5 = e+c.

And if the received euros and received cents were confused then the proper entitlement is,
x = e/100 + c*100.

That seems to be the stated situation. But is that the intent?“ **

As I already (indirectly) said:

You need one unknown for the euros and one unknown for the cents, because they are confused by the cashier, and you need them on both sides of the equation, James. The word „confused“ is the most important word in that said text („The Italian Book“ [**|**]) when it comes to translate the lingusitic text into a mathematic „text“ (equations and so on).

Good luck!

Or should I give the whole solution?

James S. Saint wrote:

„No. Just answer my question.
I was not asking about the solution. I was asking if the equations that I gave (**) represent the situation that you are trying to express.“ **

Again: There is no text problem.

James S. Saint wrote:

„If not, why not?“ **

Okay, James.

According to the said story it is right that „if the proper entitlement is x, e is the received euros, and c is the received cents, then 2x + 5 = e + c“ (**), and it is also right that „if the received euros and received cents were confused, then the proper entitlement is, x = e/100 + c*100“ (**).

You wanted me to answer your question, and I have just answered your question. Is that alright for you?

I wish you success!

I think your next post will contain the right solution.

820) Arminius, 09.09.2015, 03:11, 04:03, 17:21, 17:37 (3728-3731)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I think your next post will contain the right solution, James.« ** **

No because those equations do not work out to sensible values for e and c. You end up with fractions of cents and also that;
Received back = e + c = 2.55102040816327, which obviously cannot be right. And that is what has been holding us both up.“ **

Those equations you mentioned work, but note: they are merely abstract examples and not the solution for my concrete example. I hope you know that. You asked me to answer your question, then I answered your question. Now I hope you do not confuse my answer with the complete solution of the said task. Note: I merely answered your question.

As i said several times: You need to have both „e“ and „c“ on both sides of the equation, and then you have to find out which number (amount) the only correct one for the example is. Please note: You have both euros and cents, and your basis should be cents (just for the sake of convenience, because if you used euros as basis, then you would have to change the number „5“ in your equation). Your equations work. You do not have the right numbers. In my concrete example are merely two whole numbers for „e“ and „c“ possible.

Good luck!

The next riddle:

There are three persons hidden.

James, please read what I wrote in my last post again:

Arminius wrote:

„Those equations you mentioned work, but note: they are merely abstract examples and not the solution for my concrete example. I hope you know that.“ ** **

What has been holding us both up is more the fact that you did not take my advice. For example this:

Arminius wrote:

„You ... have to find out which number (amount) the only correct one for the example is.“ ** **

That must be a whole number.

Arminius wrote:

„In my concrete example are merely two whole numbers for „e“ and „c“ possible.“ ** **

Do you (**) think so?

The three persons are famous philosophers. You know them, and I think you have something in common with them.

==>